Wanchoo, C. J. - (1.) THIS is an application by Nathoolal under Art. 226 of the Constitution, and arises in the following circumstances: -
(2.) THE applicant is a voter in a Pachpahar. THEre is a Panchayat in Pachpahar consisting only of the town of Pachpahar. Elections to this Panchayat were ordered to be held on the 4th of December, 1955. THE applicant complains that the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Election Rules, 1934, were not complied with in connection with these elections and, therefore, the entire election, which was held on the 4th of December, 1955, was illegal, and should be so declared by this Court. THE applicant's case is that the notification, as required by Rule 4, was made on 28th of November, 1955, under the signature of the Sarpanch, and, therefore, it was neither made at least seven days before the date of election, nor by the person authorised by Rule 4 to make it. Consequently the election made on the basis of this notice was no election in law. The application has been opposed by the Panchas. Their case is that the Returning Officer was the Tehsildar of Pachpahar, and he complied with Rule 4, inasmuch as he put up the necessary notice on the notice board of the Tehsil on the 26th of November, 1955. They have also challenged the contention of the applicant that the Sarpanch made the announcement only on the 28th of November, 1955 ; but we need not go into that matter as we have come to the conclusion that the announcement by the Sarpanch cannot amount to compliance with Rule 4. We have to sea, therefore, the efficacy of the notice given by the Tehsildar on the 26th of November, 1955. It is now admitted even by the applicant that the Tehsildar did notify the public on the 26th of November, l955, for the applicant has filed copies of the Tehsildar's orders dated 26th November, 1955, and of what he did to give the notice required by Rule 4. The applicant, however, contends that the notice by the Tehsildar was not in strict compliance with Rule 4, and, therefore, the election that was held thereafter was of no effect. The argument in this connection is two-fold. In the first place it is urged that the Tehsildar merely put up the notice in the Tehsil and did not put it up in each of the wards, and, therefore this was not sufficient for the purpose of Rule 4. We are of opinion that considering the special features of this case, the notice put up by the Tehsildar in the Tehsil budding alone was sufficient, and it was not necessary for him to put up the notice in some conspicuous place in each ward, although it might have been better, if he had dune so. Rule 4 requires the Returning Officer at least seven days before the date of election to announce tor the information of the inhabitants of the Panchayat Circle by notice the number and names of wards, the number of Panchas to be elected etc. There is no prescribed method tor doing so. Where a Panchayat Circle by consists of a number of villages, it seems to us only reasonable that the Tehsildar should notify in each village the particulars required by Rule 4. Where, for example, ail the villages are away from the Tehsil headquarters, such notice must be published in each village tanning part of the Panchayat Circle. Where the Panchayat Circle consists of the Tehsil headquarters and other villages, it is necessary that the notice should be published nut only at the Tehsil head quarters, but also in all other villages. But where, as in this case, the Panchayat Circle consists of only one village, namely the Tehsil headquarters, it is not insufficient if the notice is published by pasting on the notice board in the Tehsil building the particulars required by Rule 4. 1 his was done in this case, and, therefore, it cannot be said that the election was vitiated because the notice was not published at least seven days before the date of election. The second point, that is urged, is that the notice did not contain in particular, the names of the wards, which are also required by Rule 4 We have seen the notice, and it certainly does not contain the names of the wards. Where the wards do not coincide with revenue villages, it is also necessary, in our opinion, to give sufficient description of them to enable the persons living in the locality to know what is the extent of the ward, and that also does not appear in this notice. But we had from the copy of the notice that has been filed by the applicant that it bears two endorsements. One of these endorsement shows that the Tehsildar did have the description of the 11 wards with him when he wrote out this notice, and sent that discription to the Sarpanch for further proclamation in the wards. This was of course done two days later; but that is a matter with which we are not concerned. There is nothing in the application itself to the effect that the Tehsildar did not put up the description of the wards on the notice board, and their extent could not be known to the public. Considering that the Tehsildar was putting up this notice on the notice board, and did have description of the 11 wards with him, it only stands to reason and common sense that the Tehsildar must also have put up the description and extent of the wards on the notice board. In any case, we cannot come to the conclusion that he did not do so, when nobody is prepared to swear to that effect. In these circumstances, the election cannot be held to be defective on account of this lacuna in the notice under Rule 4. The application is hereby dismissed with one set of costs to the contesting opposite-parties. .;